The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

EDITORIALS

The refinery attack

AFTER lying low for some time, the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) has struck with a vengeance. On Friday night, the banned separatists launched attacks at four places, targeting oil installations and police posts. Two persons lost their lives and six were injured. The sudden outbreak of violence belies the hopes raised after the Bodo peace accord. The concerted manner in which the ULFA men carried out the operation leads to the apprehension that this would not be the last incident of its kind and Assam will have to brace itself for similar hit-and-run raids in the days to come. Perhaps the immediate provocation was the convincing victory posed by a Congress candidate in the Ratabari Assembly byelection. ULFA has been keen to embarrass Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi. By simultaneously attacking Bihari settlers, the terrorists want to revive the movement against outsiders. The targeting of oil installations gives a new dimension to the ongoing violence which waxes and wanes but has never really stopped during the past one decade. These are not exactly soft targets but ensuring their safety is going to be a tall order. Like railway tracks, pipelines pass through remote areas and the administration will have to mount exceptionally effective vigil to protect them. Oil is the lifeline not only of the North-East but also the whole of India. If refineries are crippled through such attacks, the resultant fear psychosis will cause numerous problems for Assam.

The use of rockets and other sophisticated equipment shows that ULFA had been collecting arms and ammunition quietly. Of late, the administration had lowered its guard considerably. That, obviously, was a mistake. The terrorists have used the lull to regroup and strengthen themselves. ULFA cells are active in Bangladesh as well as Bhutan. The most dangerous aspect is that the ISI has been hobnobbing with the outfit extensively. Unfortunately, politicians have ignored these developments because of their own petty calculations. In fact, it is common knowledge that ULFA has sympathisers in the administration at various levels. This kind of double game is extremely dangerous. Instead of playing into the hands of the enemies of the nation through such nefarious activities, all concerned need to appreciate that the terrorists are nobody's friends. Hobnobbing with them might help them get one-up on their rivals for the moment, but in the long run, they themselves can become targets. The Centre too should come to the aid of the state government to the fullest.

Iraq: a dangerous turn

THE Iraqi crisis is taking a turn for the worse. The sharpening differences of opinion among the world’s big powers are leading to a situation when a showdown between the two powerful camps may be unavoidable. One camp is led by the USA with the UK, Spain and Bulgaria in tow, and the other is dominated by Germany, France, Russia and China with the last three having a veto power in the UN Security Council. This week it should be clear whether the sole super power will be able to have its wish fulfilled over Iraq by ensuring the passage of an amended version of Resolution 1441 by the Security Council, authorising the use of force against the beleaguered Saddam Hussein regime. The USA is going ahead with the new resolution as the first one has failed to pave the way for an armed invasion of Iraq. UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix submitted his second report on Friday on the demilitarisation drive in Iraq with comments which largely go against the US-UK plan for a military solution to the problem. America is obviously not satisfied, and hence its search for majority support in the Security Council over the amended resolution, which may be tabled for voting in a day or two.

As things stand today, the USA is unsure of the UN authorisation of its plan of military action. It has, therefore, launched hectic lobbying for the purpose with President George W. Bush asserting that “unfortunately, it is clear that Saddam Hussein is still violating the demands of the United Nations by refusing to disarm”. US Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice are likely to depend on the telephone to convince the Security Council members to fall in line in the interest of not only world peace but also of the survival of the world body. The US strategy, it appears, is aimed at securing the support of at least nine of the 15 Council members so that the uncompromising veto-power holders are allowed an “honourable” way out — to abstain from voting on the new resolution. Threatening tactics are being openly employed to ensure the course of events on these lines. One gets this impression from the recent US warning to Russia that Cold War sanctions may be reimposed with the discontinuance of food aid, etc, if Moscow dares to use its veto power to stall the imminent American-British military campaign against Iraq. Such warnings have not been issued to France, Germany and China because they have the capacity not to care for American mercy. And they have the majority of the world with them in support of their viewpoint — that the UN weapons inspectors should be given more time to achieve the objective of completely disarming the Iraqi regime. Will diplomacy succeed against the US-British show of force? This is a million, rather billion, dollar question at this stage. One shudders to think of the consequences in case France and Russia accept the US challenge and use their veto power with China also taking the same line. The world definitely finds itself at the crossroads. The coming few days are highly crucial, indeed.

OPINION

Soul-searching in Pakistan
War clouds over Iraq & realities in the subcontinent
Pran Chopra

THE politics of the situation is important. But the irony of it fascinating, and so comes first. The truth behind it cannot be hidden by General Musharraf's recent ranting at the NAM summit in Kuala Lumpur.

When Soviet troops marched into Afghanistan some 25 years ago, Indira Gandhi rushed her Foreign Minister, Mr Narasimha Rao, to Pakistan to assure President Zia-ul-Haque that India would not take any advantage of this development at the expense of Pakistan. Mr Rao went further. At a public meeting, which the Indian Counsel-General in Karachi managed to arrange for him, he made the Indian assurance public, and then added the proposal that India and Pakistan should put their heads together to see how they could jointly handle the event.

Pakistan asked that as proof of its goodwill India should cut its forces on the Indo-Pak border by half. India suspected that General Zia wanted Indian troops on the border to be reduced because he wanted to free his forces for use against the Russians in Afghanistan. And so General Zia's proposal, Mr Rao's mission and Mrs Gandhi's initiative all ended in smoke.

But a few years later India's suspicion about General Zia's motives gained colour because, with massive military assistance pouring into Afghanistan for use by the Taliban against Russian forces, General Zia began to dream of using Afghanistan as a stepping stone for building an Islamic empire stretching from the river Ravi in the south and east, Iran in the west, the Russian river Volga in the north, and incorporating Kashmir and all the Central Asian republics of what was then the Soviet Union south of the Volga. The dream hardened as Soviet troops retreated in the face of the Taliban forces, which were now increasingly commanded by Pakistan expertise, armed by America, and egged on by the Islamic alliance, the IOC.

But before the dream could take further shape, a nightmare followed : Pakistan' domestic polity, undermined by the backwash of the radical Talibanisation which had taken over Afghanistan, went into a spin, all the more so after the mysterious assassination of General Zia himself. This began to worry the conservative Islamic regimes of Pakistan's neighbours, as well as communist China because some Chinese areas adjacent to Pakistan are populated by disaffected Muslims.

Worse followed after the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan and the fall of the Soviet Union. The infectious zeal of the Taliban gave birth to the even more dangerous epidemic of Al-Qaida. Much of the world began to huddle together against it. America took control of all of General Zia's imagined empire from Kabul to the Russian border. Mr Putin consolidated Russia within its reduced borders. America became busy with its games elsewhere in the Middle-East . Extremist Islamists, sworn enemies of General Musharraf's pro-American tilt and suspected by China, took control of the two western provinces of Pakistan, adjacent to Afghanistan, and also became a force in the central government of Pakistan. All the schemes Islamabad tried against Kashmir were defeated by India, first militarily in Kargil and then politically in the Kashmir valley. Hence the political somersault in the past few weeks by General Musharraf, the first military dictator of Pakistan after General Zia.

Between them the two Generals had committed the political — and in one case the physical — assassination of all the four democratically elected civilian Prime Ministers that the present-day Pakistan had known : Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Mohammad Khan Junejo, Benazir Bhutto, and Nawaz Sharrif. This reduced Pakistan politics to a shambles at the same time as it faced its worst foreign policy crisis, with America turning to its own games in the Middle-East, China becoming colder, the Islamic neighbours more cautious, and India, enraged by jehadi terrorism, fully mobilised on its entire border with Pakistan. When his policies began to backfire one after the other at home and abroad, General Musharraf rushed to Moscow three weeks ago and proclaimed President Putin to be the best man for pulling the chestnuts out of the fire for him. All that remains for General Musharraf to do to re-run the Narasimha Rao reel in reverse is to say India and Pakistan should put their heads together for jointly facing the crisis that looms as American troops prepare to March into Iraq.

But the reversal in Pakistan is best illustrated by some outstanding soul-searching in the Pakistan Press. Writing in the boldest newspaper in the country, The Friday Times, which he now edits, the well-known commentator Najam Sethi says General Musharraf is right in describing his Moscow visit as "historic" but he wryly adds it has been "fifty years overdue" because, as he explains, "If after independence we had been more 'neutral' like India we might have escaped the crippling dependence on the United States, (might have) prohibited the rise of the military as the sole determinant of our 'national security' … made peace rather than war … with our neighbour to the east" and avoided "the proxy war with Moscow in the 1980s" in Afghanistan into which, he says, Pakistan was "prodded by the United States".

Recalling that the USA was "packing its bags in Pakistan" in 1987, Sethi argues "that would have been a good time" to start "patching up' not just with the new Moscow but also with the old New Delhi… But a band of military adventurers had other ideas. They wanted to conquer Afghanistan, dominate Central Asia, and carve a green crescent from Turkey to Chechenya". He welcomes the termination of General Zia's Afghan policy by General Musharraf but adds Pakistan should also have started "thinking of how to wrap up our pro-active Kashmir policy" before it started undermining dividends reaped from abandoning the Afghan policy." He recommends a Kashmir settlement "without redrawing boundaries" (a settlement along the Line of Control?) but also cautions Pakistan against "the fiery insistence of the Kashmir jehadis that they are readying to carry the war from Srinagar to New Delhi".

A former editor of the same paper, Khaled Ahmad, analysing General Musharraf's approach to normalising relations with India, says "Normalisation with an economically and militarily superior India has been made conditional by Pakistan to the undoing of the status quo while its internal weakness and international isolation undermines its foreign policy stance. Much of its internal weakness has stemmed from its deniable use of mercenary warriors in its 'low-intensity conflict' with India over the status quo. While normalisation has been made realistic by its possession of a nuclear deterrent vis-à-vis India, Pakistan's insistence on using it to force a change in the status quo has isolated it internationally. The measure of this isolation was revealed recently by General Musharraf when he disclosed that the Islamic world was no longer willing to include Pakistan's view of the Kashmir dispute in the OIC agenda. There was even an attempt by the Islamic states to allow India to join the OIC. As civil society struggles for survival in the ideological state of Pakistan, much of the decision-making in it is triggered, not by strategic thinking, but by a process of obsolescence in its foreign policy."

The course of Indo-Pakistan history over the past 30 years or more is too thickly littered with the debris of peace efforts for anyone to be very optimistic about the success of General Musharraf's expectation that his journey to Moscow will do what so many earlier efforts by so many others were not able to do. But it remains a significant event that for the first time ever since the Tashkent conference in Moscow in 1965, Moscow has lent itself to a triangular effort to make peace between India and Pakistan, and it is still more significant that the effort to involve Moscow has been initiated this time by Pakistan.

The conference in 1965 was brought about by the Soviet leadership of the day, and possibly also with some suggestions by Washington, both super powers being prodded by the apprehension that Indo-Pakistan tensions might again be used by China, as they were in 1962, when China was able to take a slice of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir territory from Pakistan, and as they were used again in 1971 when Pakistan began a long-term affair with China as a hedge against India and, to some extent, against America. The Simla meeting, between Indira Gandhi and Z.A. Bhutto , the series of meetings between Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto, then between Indian Prime Minister I.K. Gujral and Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and both of the two meetings between General Musharraf and Mr Vajpayee resulted only from efforts begun in these two countries though others also made encouraging noises from the sidelines. But it is for the first time that a triangular attempt has been initiated by Pakistan though it is possible that a triangular outcome at some future date was assumed to be a condition by both General Musharraf and President Putin when they agreed to meet. This is one reason for some optimism.

A second reason is that, as the commentaries in the Pakistan Press make so amply clear, there is a much greater understanding in Pakistan now than there has ever been in the past that Pakistan can no longer afford the war games it has played with India for half a century. War was never an option chosen by India. Pakistan has never chosen any other option. The reason may have only been that since Kashmir was already a part of India there was no reason for India to go to war for getting it, whereas Pakistan knew that war was the only way for it, however, the ruinous the consequences might be for it. But whatever the reasons the fact remains that war for Kashmir was always thrust upon India, never initiated or sought by it. Now Pakistan realises that even war will not do.

A third reason : It is strange but true that faster than any other person one can think of, President Putin has become a trusted figure in many situations of dispute between countries, although hardly anyone outside Russia and not many inside it knew much about him when he became the President of Russia. There is something about his personal chemistry which is quite unique. He has a firm grasp of essentials, and he puts them firmly on the table, thus forestalling later misunderstandings. He displayed these qualities even in his somewhat brief interaction with General Musharraf last month. He made it clear to General Musharraf that no effort to reach agreements would be worth making unless there was full assurance than the agreements reached would be fully observed. And he made it known to India that he had made this clear to General Musharraf. Therefore, future talks between India and Pakistan, as he told both countries, must begin on the basis of the Simla and Lahore agreements, even if only to discuss whether they needed to be updated or altered, and that too could only be done by agreement.

And, of course, above all other reasons for some optimism there is the reason that India and Pakistan have an even greater need now than ever before to resolve their differences because of the war clouds hanging over West Asia, the most significant Muslim majority area in the world which is likely to see the war as a clash between faiths. Pakistan's population is almost entirely Muslim. India has the second largest Muslim population in the world. Both will be affected in complex ways by the impending war, and neither will be fully able to deal with the complexities to its full ability without fully understanding the large Muslim block just across the border.

Lessons from a welcome French resurgence
V. Gangadhar

IN US official circles, France is definitely a six-letter word. The pro-Bush elements in the USA, angered by France’s initiative in uniting Europe against any military offensive against Iraq, had stooped to record levels to show their contempt for anything French. Thus, there are moves to find out new names for “French” fries, “French” toast and even the “French” kiss. The Republican hotheads have called for a boycott of French food, wines and movies.

One did not expect such a silly attitude from the only super power in the world. But the Americans are traditional sulkers, whenever things do not go their way. The French, on the other hand, are basking under the glow of their new-found leadership qualities and are prepared to fight the USA in the UN Security Council over the Iraq issue.

This was somewhat unusual because the French had never carried their disagreements with the USA beyond a certain point. That kind of “Lakshman Rekha” has been clearly crossed on the current squabble over Iraq where France, in the company of Germany and Russia, has dared to challenge the USA. The French government knew that such a move would be hugely unpopular with the Bush administration and had accepted the challenge.

Was this some kind of French renaissance? Was France keen to prove to the world that despite its adherence to the Western alliance, it would not go all the way with the USA and the UK on any military adventurism in the Middle-East? Historically speaking, the USA in the past had often been irked by such French “intransigence”. During World War-II, the Allied leadership of President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill found the French leadership in exile under General De Gaulle quite irksome. Years later, President John Kennedy of the USA was often exasperated at the French insistence for an independent nuclear arsenal. Kennedy was keen that the nuclear monopoly be restricted to his own country, the USSR and the UK and would not understand why a “small and weak” nation like France wanted to possess its own nuclear weapons.

So much for history. Today, French President Jacques Chirac must be basking under the glow of being a senior, sensible, pragmatic world leader who is trying his best to rein in the war-mongering US leadership. The joint Press conference hosted by the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Russia on Wednesday made it clear that the new Troika was determined to do everything possible to prevent a military adventure in Iraq. And that included vetoing a unilateral pro-war US resolution in the UN Security Council.

Chirac is clearly enjoying his new status as a major world leader. Perhaps, this explains yet another major move by him, a state visit to Algeria, the first-ever by a French leader to its former colony. Chirac, who was an army officer during the brutal military campaign in Algeria, must have been gratified at the ecstatic welcome he received from the Algerians. The bitterness, the cruelty and the old wounds were forgotten and there was yet another feather in the Chirac cap.

The Algerian visit itself and the welcome accorded to a French President were indeed remarkable developments. No colonial war in modern times was as cruel and as brutal as the Algerian conflict. For sheer brutality, it was even worse than the one unleashed by the ruling new-Nazis in Israel against the Palestinians. The liberation struggle had claimed hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians and left bitter scars and memories. That made the welcome to Mr Chirac all the more remarkable.

More than a million Algerians lined up the streets of the capital Algiers to greet the former foe. Clearly enjoying the adulation, the French President laughed, waved and responded by shaking hands. The crowds found an echo in Mr Chirac’s outspoken call against the likelihood of war against Iraq.

Mr Chirac did not leave anything to chance in wooing the Algerians. He returned, with due ceremony, the silver seal of the last ruler of Algeria, seized by France in 1830, to the Algerian President, Abdelziz Bouteflika. The gesture, much appreciated by the Algerians, will pave the way for a new chapter in relations between the two countries.

The state visit was clearly meant to add yet another member to Mr Chirac’s anti-war brigade. He need not have worked hard, the mood in Algeria was clearly anti-war. Algeria had experienced for nearly 25 years the horrors of colonial war and did not want a repetition in any part of the world. The people and the President clearly agreed with the French proposals to give more time to the UN inspectors in Iraq and that unity among nations can clearly thwart any plans for war.

The Chirac visit did not overlook bilateral issues, the major problem being the future of Algerian nationals still living and working in France. The issue is mired in confusion and mutual suspicion. When former President Charles De Gaulle began steps to grant independence to Algeria, the move met with hostility and anger both among the French settlers as well as the armed forces. Extremist elements in the French armed forces made several unsuccessful attempts to assassinate the French President ( one of them became the theme of the popular thriller, “The Day of the Jackal”) .

Today, there are nearly two million Algerians living in France and most of them complain that they are victims of ghettoising of their communities in France. This had been a sensitive issue in Franco-Algerian relationship over the past years and the Chirac visit could not ignore such complaints.

Both Presidents might agree that the past was best forgotten. While the French army was guilty of horrific crimes against the Algerians, resistance groups were also not slow to hit back. If Nazi war criminals of World War II and those who were involved in the Bosnian massacres could be tried and sentenced, why not members of the French armed forces for their war crimes in Algeria?

Perhaps, the millions of Algerian hands which reached out to President Chirac provided the answer. When two nations were ready to forget the past and build a new era of peaceful coexistence, it was perhaps time to forget the biter memories of the past. What was more important was that France and Algeria were together in preventing more such tragedies in the days to come.

Mr Chirac must have been gratified that his anti-war stand had been fully endorsed by Algiers. And if his government could take steps to ensure a rightful place for French Algerians in French society, his state visit would have been really worth it. At the same time, the Algerians themselves must look inwards and pledge to avoid the violence which had rocked their country even after independence. Algeria had been the scene of violent religious battles involving different Muslim sects. Lessons from the past must be learnt and mistakes not repeated in the days to come. Algeria needs peace within, even as it supports the anti-war stand by France on the Iraq issue.

MIDDLE

Landikotal Mail
V.N. Kakar

WHERE the dickens am I? In Delhi, of course. Then why do I keep on thinking of Pakistan? Obviously because that is where I come from. To be precise, I was born and brought up in Peshawar. I did my MA from the Islamia College there and was bundled out of the town in the holocaust that swept it in 1947. Did that holocaust also blow up the Landikotal Mail? I can’t say. But whenever I think of Pakistan, whenever I think of Peshawar, the Landikotal Mail comes rushing towards me.

That glorious train had several unique features. Let me explain some of them. One, it symbolised like nothing else did the munificence of the British Empire. Two, travel by it was free. Three, while it ran, anybody walking on foot could overtake it. Four, anyone carrying a gun could stop it. Five, it had a coach earmarked as a gambling den. Six, this den was duly authorised. Seven, admission to it was restricted to regulars only (card-holders and corps commanders in modern terminology). Eight, it covered a distance of 26 miles between Peshawar and Landikotal, the terminus on the Afghan border, in eight hours. Nine, it was regular as a rule, leaving Peshawar early in the morning and returning to it late in the night. Ten, it had a driver but no guard.

The den-coach belonged to Jaan and Machliwal, two notorious dons of the city. They used to take possession of it turn by turn. One day, it was Jaan. The next day, it was Machliwal. The going was good. Both had their own gangs of gamblers. As a matter of principle, one gang never allowed any member of the other gang into the coach on its day.

One day, it occurred to Jaan or Machliwal that he could do one better over his rival. So, as the train reached Landikotal, he decided that it should not return to Peshawar that night. That would, so he thought, deprive his enemy of his legitimate earnings the following day. How to do that? How to put that great idea into practice? Kill the driver? No. With the driver gone, who will take them back to Peshawar? Blow up the train? Stupid. With that, would go up in flames the den-coach also. After good deal of serious thought, it occurred to someone highly enlightened that instead of killing the driver or blowing up the train, they should blow up the track on which the train ran. Great idea. It was approved unanimously. Two members of the gang covered half of the distance between Peshawar and Landikotal on foot and right in the middle blew up a part of the track.

Next evening, as the train with the victorious gang on board moved towards Peshawar, it got stuck up right where the track had been blown off. And so the gang was stranded there. What happened to the other gang? I can’t say. But whenever I think of Peshawar, the blessed train comes back to me. And it occurs to me that it reflects that unique brand of democracy which the British left in Pakistan and which continues to perpetuate itself. In this democracy, who is Jaan? Who is Machliwal? Who are the other gamblers? Who are whose patrons? I can’t answer those questions. For I am not in my senses.